LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from MarkGoldes

torque on the foundation is clearly an engineering problem that will have a straightforward solution

as Oystia has indicated the materials cost of the propeller vs the 'water blades" is cheaper..

the engineering solution always has associated costs and efficiencies

higher toppling torque will cause higher foundation/support costs

modern wind turbines have settled on the 3 blade propeller...with aerodynamic lift..

although the old wooden windmills in europe were OK for grinding flour

they would not scale up economically to the height / power of modern propeller windmills.

no matter how good the engineers were..

as W has stated , there may be a unique niche market for the Aesop turbine.

https://www.google.com.au/url?…Vaw0NYEVC2SpS-ubTC5YXg9ag

I'll assume that 'toppling torque' means that that the structure will want to twist, enough to topple down to the ground under the strain?

Why is this a concern with the Waters turbine and not (apparently) so much with others?

To Mark G : I don't understand how "ambient heat" has anything to do with the claimed efficiency of the Waters turbine. If you understand it, could you elaborate?

Quote from JedRothwell

Impossible burgers are not made of soy. They have no soy beans in them.

Ingredients: Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.

Beyond Meat burgers also have no soy in them.

And I hope people ain't seriously mad about some soy protein, it's has a good amino acid profile. Are there any significant nutrient compound or elemental shifts in a protein isolate comparing GMO and non GMO? How do we assume the structure of the dietary protein is what has been negatively affected?

Quote from Max Nozin

Always wondered why American consumers prefer food made of anything but the food iteself like Cheez-wheez

Same here I was raised vegan, currently am lacto/ovo vegetarian and things like hard margarine and some the fad *important ingredient*-free "healthy" processed foods on the shelves don't make sense to me. Just eat fresh foods and drink mostly water. As an american I will say conveniance I guess.

Quote from Mark U

Why is this a concern with the Waters turbine and not (apparently) so much with others?

I already mentioned it! A wall absorbs the full momentum and tries to reverse it. Here (waters T.) you have additional pressure (compression) due to piled up air. The surplus of the waters turbine is from the added pressure as the pressuring cylinder is larger (area) than the area of the turbine.

The blades divert (split) the forces and a large part will be axial! and most important the area is just 1/20 .. 1/30.

Wind turbines are not optimized to use all energy of the wind. They are optimized to deliver max energy for minimal costs.

So lets wait for a reasonable prototype that delivers some 100kW. Pleae calculate the area for 6m/s wind speed what is a common good minimum.

the wind turbine and soy..

My attempt to unify this thread partially..

The bottom line is if you want more LE ..F..R and bang for your bean

go for unfermented soy..

Eschew.. natto... tempeh.. fermented fakes

Maximise strong RAF and STACH. and then hitch up an ignition augmented expansion turbine..

fixed with big screws to the roof of the loo.

https://www.westonaprice.org/h…es-the-flatulence-factor/

Quote from Wyttenbach

and most important the area is just 1/20 .. 1/30.

I'll guess that you are basing this on something unspoken : that the 'area' of a traditional wind turbine is the area swept out by the 3 blades, not the surface area of the blades themselves.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Wind turbines are not optimized to use all energy of the wind. They are optimized to deliver max energy for minimal costs.

Good point.

Quote from Wyttenbach

So lets wait for a reasonable prototype that delivers some 100kW. Pleae calculate the area for 6m/s wind speed what is a common good minimum.

Making some very simplistic assumptions (like 1 cubic metre of air is about 1kg, and no air entrainment and other special effects), we would get Surface Area = 2*P / V^3 = 2*10E5/6^3 =~ 9000 m^2 - an area larger than a soccer field - to get 100kW from a wind speed of 6m/s, oy vey.

Curious.. modeled after a ice sled sail? ridiculously fast...?

Quote from Mark U

Making some very simplistic assumptions (like 1 cubic metre of air is about 1kg, and no air entrainment and other special effects), we would get Surface Area = 2*P / V^3 = 2*10E5/6^3 =~ 9000 m^2 - an area larger than a soccer field - to get 100kW from a wind speed of 6m/s, oy vey.

Classical 3 blade turbines cover more than 4 soccer fields:

Newest 14MW Siemens 220 meters diameter : https://www.handelsblatt.com/u…-t7xsIdCtHuIf7IZ6CjHV-ap3

Quote from MarkGoldes

"A fellow attending Mike’s Global BEM lecture built another prototype. What he found, independently, was so unbelievable that Mike didn't dare repeat the numbers until he had additional corroboration.

Sorry. Such sentences are for kids that like whizz stories or just play with toys.

Quote from MarkGoldes

As I recall, most scientists made similar statements when Cold Fusion surfaced in Utah.

The history of science is sadly a long story of dogma in a field where human survival demands open minds.

When the Wright Brothers flew in 1903 few believed heavier than air flight was possible. It took five years for Scientific American, the NY Times and the Smithsonian to acknowledge the new reality.

The difference is "Cold Fusion" has numerical chemical and nuclear metrics that define what is possible and what isn't given certain variables. A Waters wind turbine that's 50× better than the rest is cool, just explaine how it works. Where the momentum actually comes from? How the ambient heat increases efficiency? There is more energy in the winds water vapor than in what the blades can extract from air differentials. The electromagnetic push, internal ambiance, should come from inside the atom, but outside the nucleus.

Quote from JedRothwell

Impossible burgers are not made of soy. They have no soy beans in them. Ingredients: Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Beyond Meat burgers also have no soy in them.

Impossible burgers are indeed made of soy, why are you spreading disinfo, which can everyone check easily? That is to say the original Impossible Burger contains the following ingredients:

Water, textured wheat protein, coconut oil, potato protein, natural flavors, 2% or less of leghemoglobin (soy), yeast extract, salt, konjac gum, xanthan gum, soy protein isolate, vitamin E, vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1), zinc, niacin, vitamin B6, riboflavin (vitamin B2), and vitamin B12.

But in 2019, the company introduced a new recipe featuring the following changes:

• uses soy protein instead of wheat protein, making it "gluten-free" (and more profitable, who would say that? The rest of burger indeed contains gluten anyway...)
• contains a plant-based culinary binder called methylcellulose to improve texture
• replaced a portion of the coconut oil with sunflower oil to reduce saturated fat content

• Doctor: Burger King's 'Impossible Burger' has 18 million times more estrogen than regular Whopper.

  The impossible whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen,” wrote Stangle. “That means an impossible whopper has 18 million times as much estrogen as a regular whopper.” In short, the Impossible Burger is a genetically modified organism filled with calorie-dense oils that can make a man grow breasts if eaten in sufficient quantity.

  • New studies suggest that eating large amounts of soy’s estrogen-mimicking compounds might reduce fertility in women, trigger early puberty and disrupt development of fetuses and children. Women with estrogen-positive breast cancer must avoid soybean sprouts, because they contain plant hormones that may stimulate the growth of their tumors. The consumption of soya can be also linked to global rise of endiometriosis in women, because estrogens (as their name implies) can induce oestrus and ovulation across internal surface of intestine cavity.
  • Song 1999 found that (in laboratory mice) soy isoflavones are only weakly estrogenic, much less so than actual estrogen. But negative results of animal research studies into soy may be irrelevant to human health, particularly because soy is metabolized differently in humans and in rodents.
  • Allen et al. 2000 found that vegan men have significantly higher testosterone than vegetarian or meat-eating men — because "soy" being nearly synonymous with tofu (and thus vegan/vegetarianism). The study controlled for "age, smoking status, vigorous exercise and time between venipuncture and blood processing".
  • Sperm count decline and increasing rate of testicular cancers in the West may be linked to a higher presence of phytoestrogens in the diet. Furthermore, there is some evidence that phytoestrogens may affect male fertility, despite "further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn". But because soya lobby is strong, we are still waiting for such an investigations. Ten-times increase of soya consumption worldwide in recent twenty years is result of smart marketing campaign, the main purpose of which was to increase demand for industrial waste (soybean meal
• from press cake) of production of cheap soybean oil.
• Does Red Clover Cause Infertility in Sheep? Phytoestrogens are known like endocrine disruptors. They're also responsible for bitter taste of soya products. The content of phytoestrogens is particularly high (50-150x) in popular soybean sprout
• which are often consumed fresh at West, whereas Koreans use mung beans instead and just after cooking or fermentation, which may limit their adverse effects.
• An allergic reaction to chemicals in soybeans is among the top 8 food allergies in North America. Most of those who are allergic to soy are allergic to one or more of the proteins in the bean, but also to components of soybean oil. And I'm not still talking about allergenic effects of GMO soya, which forms majority of soya production today 1, 2, 3, 4.
• Industrial soyabeans products often contain excessive amount of neurotoxic aluminium, because they're produced by washing with acids in aluminium tanks. The aluminium content in soybean protein concentrate can reach 200 mg kg-1 or higher.
• Goitrogens in soya are also strumigens as they block thyroxine production and iodine uptake, phytate proteins, which limit uptake of calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc from food and finally anti-nutrition proteins (trypsin inhibitors

), which suppress protein digestion of proteins (antinutritionals are linked to malnutrition of soya diet). From this reason raw soybeans aren't edible as they cannot be digested at all.

Therefore the switching to soya diet instead of meat may paradoxically increase both malnutrition, both consumption of proteins as a whole by human society (eating soya products leaves you hungry, which is good for their producers, much less for their consumers).

I have to point out that the claimed "independent replication" of the Waters Turbine appears to be replication of the modelling calculations, with no device or actual data shown. It seems conceptually interesting but one wonders why there is no video or similar evidence of a working example. One of the articles does mention a comparative test under load between a 4-foot diameter Waters prototype and a 5-foot diameter three-blade conventional wind generator. No photos or actual data are provided to support the claimed efficiency measured in that test.